Iraq cuts oil for 30 days *UPDATED* Now with 50% more missiles!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I have no link, just check your favorite news outlet.



I think it's more of a symbolic movement because we have enough barrel reserves to last for 5 years based on Iraqs oil output. So in the end it's only hurtiung him and his people, but he's no stranger to hurting his own people.



[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    shit, i knew i should have topped off the tank this morning.....
  • Reply 2 of 31
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I have no link,



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Whereas I <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.oil/index.html"; target="_blank">do</a>.



    J :cool:
  • Reply 3 of 31
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]But any oil boycott would be ineffective without Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who have rejected Iraq's call to use oil as a weapon. <hr></blockquote>



    So are we really concerned? Plus, Bush has been banking on this, already pre-emptively changing his stance on the ANWR policy.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]So are we really concerned?<hr></blockquote>



    Since we depend on other nations to import our oil for us, yes, we should be concerned that some say they will stop shipping it to us.



    If you relied on someone else for food and they said, "no more food for you", would you be concerned?



    Saudi Arabia is the one to be worried about, but this isn't exactly good.



    [quote]Plus, Bush has been banking on this, already pre-emptively changing his stance on the ANWR policy.<hr></blockquote>



    God knows we shouldn't be self-reliant. Pity the thought.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]If you relied on someone else for food and they said, "no more food for you", would you be concerned?<hr></blockquote>



    Well, it's a bad analogy because it's really like saying that Shop and Save won't sell you food but Wal Mart will. Plus, we can always get the oil from Russia. They're practically begging us to buy their oil.



    But if this proves anything, it's that we need to look for alternative ways to power our cars. Bush won't like that, though, for obvious reasons.
  • Reply 6 of 31
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    i'm surprised we don't have a contract with Kuwait saying bascially



    "now that we totally saved your collective asses, all your oil are belong to us"



    at least, that's what i would have done.



    i bet they could be pursuaded to up the production quotas a bit to make up for Iraq.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:

    <strong>i'm surprised we don't have a contract with Kuwait saying bascially



    "now that we totally saved your collective asses, all your oil are belong to us"



    at least, that's what i would have done.



    i bet they could be pursuaded to up the production quotas a bit to make up for Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Ah i see, we save us , but now you are our oil colony





    Anyway this boycott from Iracq will hurt more Iracq than occident, oil is their only income.
  • Reply 8 of 31
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,045member
    Iraq only does about 200,000 barrels a day. It has been said that they may not even follow through on the threat., whether they announced it today or not.



    In any case, most of the world's oil production is in Canada anyway, believe it or not. This is followed by Saudi Arabia and then Russia.
  • Reply 9 of 31
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Drill Alaska! Drill California! Drill Florida! Drill drill drill!



    Saddam is just trying to prolong the Israeli crisis because he knows when that's over, he's next.
  • Reply 10 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Forget drilling. Take those billions we would use for middle east aide and develop great fuel cells and safe ways to make, store, and transport hydrogen. Self reliance AND ecologically safe.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    If we go into Iraq again to remove Saddam, we should also take as much of the land as possible and give it to the Israelis.



    We should also start planning on using alternate sources of energy such as fuel cells. The other day, I heard on the radio that fuel cells exist that use Hydrogen and Borax. They produce virtually no pollution and there is almost an unlimited supply.
  • Reply 12 of 31
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Fran:



    [quote]Well, it's a bad analogy because it's really like saying that Shop and Save won't sell you food but Wal Mart will.<hr></blockquote>



    This just illustrates that having our oil supply cut off is possible since we get most of it from Arab countries that are none-too-pleased with us right now.



    [quote]Plus, we can always get the oil from Russia. They're practically begging us to buy their oil.<hr></blockquote>



    But what about their pristine, beautiful and virgin wildlands? Think of the elk!!!



    [quote]But if this proves anything, it's that we need to look for alternative ways to power our cars. Bush won't like that, though, for obvious reasons.<hr></blockquote>



    Obvious reasons like what? Like how over half of his energy plan ideas related to increased fuel-efficiency and renewable energy resources?



    Please, Fran, lay out these highly obvious reasons for us.



    BRussell, my favorite bigot:



    [quote]Drill Alaska! Drill California! Drill Florida! Drill drill drill!<hr></blockquote>



    You know you're running out of oxygen to the brain when you're quoting Democrat shills like Gephardt and Daschle.



    [quote]Saddam is just trying to prolong the Israeli crisis because he knows when that's over, he's next. <hr></blockquote>



    Spot on with this, though, maybe there's hope for your hate-filled self yet.



  • Reply 13 of 31
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    [quote]This just illustrates that having our oil supply cut off is possible since we get most of it from Arab countries that are none-too-pleased with us right now.<hr></blockquote>



    nah, it's something like 15% of our oil comes from middle eastern countries. it isn't that much.



    (from cnn news)



    edit: oh yeah, and i would guess a major reason iraq is doing this is so that when we go after Saddam he can say we're doing it because they cut off the oil, and whip the other Arab countries into a tizzy over whether or not we'll come after them if they try to stop selling us oil.



    paint us as a oil hungry nation that tries to cover our greedy nature in this supposed "anti terrorism" facade.



    [ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 31
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    <a href="http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/fuelcell/reformer.html"; target="_blank">http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/fuelcell/reformer.html</a>;



    Here is a fuel cell that is very flexible. It can use any number of fuels including gasoline (not burning so no pollution), ethanol, methanol, etc. I also saw a link about a company in Danbury, CT that has a patent on a technology that makes use of the heat generated by a fuel cell that runs a turbine that in turn runs a generator that auguments the electricity produced by the fuel cell and increases the overall efficiency of the unit.



    Even if we don't hear about all this progress on the big news outlets, nevertheless there IS progress being made on fuel cell technology.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>BRussell, my favorite bigot:</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, I'm bigoted. Damn nappy-headed caribou. Whenever I see one, I walk to the other side of the street and keep my hand on my wallet.





    The ANWR issue is a joke. They're not counting on getting much oil out of it - if we relied on it alone, it would probably be gone in a year. Howsbouts some long-term policies?



    I think it's just symbolic - Bush is using it to say "I'm not with those tree-huggers."
  • Reply 16 of 31
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    [QB]Yeah, I'm bigoted. Damn nappy-headed caribou. Whenever I see one, I walk to the other side of the street and keep my hand on my wallet.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Bwahahahaaaa! Not sure why, but I found that very funny.



    [quote]The ANWR issue is a joke. They're not counting on getting much oil out of it - if we relied on it alone, it would probably be gone in a year. Howsbouts some long-term policies?<hr></blockquote>



    Where do you get your figures? How much reserves do we have up there? My understanding has been that we have a lot more oil up there than anyone is willing to disclose. But then again, I have not links or pages to back that up, just "grapevine" type information. I would really be interested in seeing some real hard numbers though.



    [quote]I think it's just symbolic - Bush is using it to say "I'm not with those tree-huggers."<hr></blockquote>



    maybe, or maybe he knows something about the amount of oil up there that he is not letting on about. Maybe he knows that now more than ever we need out own reserves so that we can withstand a boycott by the oil nations in the Mid East. Then again, he may have a feww nappy headed Caribou friends slipping him some green on the side to get their own oil derricks while the gettin's good.
  • Reply 17 of 31
    eskimoeskimo Posts: 474member
    [quote]Where do you get your figures? How much reserves do we have up there? My understanding has been that we have a lot more oil up there than anyone is willing to disclose. But then again, I have not links or pages to back that up, just "grapevine" type information. I would really be interested in seeing some real hard numbers though.



    <hr></blockquote>



    Well there is a lot of debate on just how much oil is up there. The USGS conducted a study of Area 1002 (the part of ANWR under consideration for oil exploration) in 1998. From their 2D seismic survey they concluded there is between 15 and 42 billion barrels of oil in the study area. They then said that 37% of that oil would be technically recoverable using 1998 recovery techniques. After this it becomes a matter of economics. What percentage of that oil that can technically be extracted is economical. Assuming a barrel of oil sells for $18 they said 48-71%, assuming $24/barrel that number rises to 87-91%.



    Of course there is some contention from industry on these numbers. For one they claim that the technically recoverable numbers are far too low. Pointing out that original estimates of Prudhoe bay were ony 35% yet they have been able to recover nearly 65% using newly developed techniques. Also the industry and others are pushing for congress to authorize at least a more precise survey of the area using improved 3D techniques now available to geologists.



    Edit: USGS survey fact sheet is <a href="http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf"; target="_blank">here</a>



    Industry/Alaskan explination of USGS survey is available <a href="http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/ANWR_estimates.pdf"; target="_blank">here</a>



    [ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: Eskimo ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 31
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:

    <strong>Where do you get your figures?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure exactly where that thought came from. I think I saw somewhere that we use between 5 and 10 billion barrels of oil each year, which is about the estimate of the recoverable oil in ANWR.



    <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html"; target="_blank">Here's a quicky fact sheet from the energy department about US oil use.</a> It says we use about 20 million barrels of petroleum per day, which does work out to about 7 billion barrels a year (but that's petroleum products, not crude oil).



    <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html"; target="_blank">And here's the summary from the energy department about those USGS estimates of the oil in ANWR that Eskimo linked.</a>

    [quote]The USGS made the following estimates in 1998 of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:



    ? There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

    ? There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

    ? The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.<hr></blockquote> But that's how much is "technically recoverable," and as Eskimo points out (and an Eskimo would know better than anyone), what is technically recoverable may not be economically worth it, and that depends on the technology that's around in 10-15 years, when this would actually go into production. [quote]maybe, or maybe he knows something about the amount of oil up there that he is not letting on about. Maybe he knows that now more than ever we need out own reserves so that we can withstand a boycott by the oil nations in the Mid East.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>I'm just giving my boy Bush a hard time for the benefit of my Republican friends here - I'm sure it's not totally symbolic. But I don't know why he wouldn't let on about how much oil is available, when he's trying to push the policy. Wouldn't he try to tell us if he knew that a lot more was available?



    He said in a speech a while back that ANWR could give us the same amount we import from Iraq. But we only get a couple percent of our oil from Iraq. And he didn't say anything about the length of time we could sustain getting that oil from ANWR. Maybe at its peak production we could get that much, but that wouldn't last for very long.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    Thank you eskimo and Brussell. Just what I was looking for.



    I still think that drilling is a good idea to give us a backup in case the middle east does turn on us, but it puts it a bit more into perspective.
  • Reply 20 of 31
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    If the government poured money into research for alternative fuel sources and efficiency research we could see huge changes in extremely short times.



    What exactly is the hold up? Do they not want to free themselves of the middle eastern oil ties once and for all?



    I don't get it. We are so close to having some viable alternatives. All we need is a push from the government.



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Sign In or Register to comment.